I was replying specificaly regarding the Japanese paradox of allowing firearms, but disallowing their using them for the really important, fundamental need. So fundamental that it made politics happen, all the way back to the time of things like Hammurabi.
About the futility of standing with better odds rather than worse ones.. is that just the scandinavian cynicism showing thru or what?
Really, 'dying on your feet' isn't just a fancy saying. And should you prefer to die on your knees, why deny others the right to do otherwise? You (not you) are going to die/fail anyway, as you (you) say, so what's the difference, right?
And if you do allow people to own firearms, why would it be a stretch to let them carry them?
What is the difference between trusting a person with a firearm that's shot in the privacy of a home where no witness can attest to the ethics of its use (I presume such is the case in the countries you mentionned, like australia etc), and one that's more likely shot in the presence of other people (like in the US)?